Perpetual virginity (not a hate thread)

[Standing Up]

Yea I saw that brought up on the other thread.

Btw, can I get you to vote on my thread here?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7400512/

Sorry no. Brothers apparently may be translated as brother or uncle. Sister, however, may only be translated sister (physical or spiritual), so says, Vines, Strongs, Thayers, and Harpers. So, it says Jesus had sisters, thus answering the question.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Sorry no. Brothers apparently may be translated as brother or uncle. Sister, however, may only be translated sister (physical or spiritual), so says, Vines, Strongs, Thayers, and Harpers. So, it says Jesus had sisters, thus answering the question.

Okie dokie

 

[Thekla]

Some might twist it to that, but without any scriptural support or tradition support. So no, I wouldn't fear that.

OTOH, it may work in reverse. Besides, wasn't that gnosticism (flesh is bad?).

Interestingly, of the early anti-Christian sources mentioned earlier in this thread (Babylonian Talmud, the pagan Celsus who claims Jewish sources),iirc, all state Mary had only Jesus as her Child.

As for Gnosticism, the intent was different. The belief was that matter/creation was created by a lesser or evil deity; thus, matter was evil.

This was not like the Christian teaching or Christian celibacy; after all, John the Baptist was celibate, Paul was celibate and encouraged others to be. Christ stated that some became eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, and did not condemn this. Clearly, this was not the same as Gnosticism.

 

[Thekla]

Sorry no. Brothers apparently may be translated as brother or uncle. Sister, however, may only be translated sister (physical or spiritual), so says, Vines, Strongs, Thayers, and Harpers. So, it says Jesus had sisters, thus answering the question.

These are abbreviated lexicons. For example, the Perseus online lexicon (sometimes brutally slow, and also abbreviated so that reverse searches are necessary, and tends not to let me search the same term twice in one day) also gives kinswoman, cousin (iirc) and bride as definitions of adelphi. Cambridge University Classics dept. intends to add their database to Perseus in 2010. These databases cull the definitions in part from the extant texts that are posted on the database. Thus, as more extant Greek literature is added, the definitions can expand.

Perseus Table of Contents

Note, for example, that in extant Greek secular works, the use is also applied to neighbor (though I can't recall the author, sorry). When Plato uses the term "adelphn", in the Laws, he gives a further explanation -- of the same mother, for ex. (In Plato, because the particular meaning is explained by narrowdescription, Perseus still gives the definition "sister" as - due to Platos' narrowing - the particular textual use of adelphn is thus known; this does not mean that adelphn always means sister).

 

[Secundulus]

This is from Perseus

ἀδελφ-ή , h(, fem. of ἀδελφός, A. sister, Trag., E Fr.866, etc.; “ὁμοπατρία ἀ.” Men.Georg.12, cf. PTeb.320.5 (ii A.D.): Ion. ἀδελφ-εή , Hdt.2.56, al.; Ep. ἀδελφ-ειή , Q.S.1.30; Dor. ἀδελφ-εά , Pi.N.7.4, and in lyr, passages of Trag., S.OT160, OC535.
2. kinswoman, LXX Jb.42.11.
3. term of endearment, Ca.4.9, To.5.21; applied to a wife, POxy.744.1 (i B. C.), etc.:—as a title, Βερενίκη ἡ ἀ. καὶ αὐτοῦ (of a cousin) OGI60.3 (iii B. C.):—sister (as a fellow Christian), Ep.Rom.16.1, etc.



Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940. The National Science Foundation provided support for entering this text.

 

[Standing Up]

Yes, as she says this. To add: the "active" part of the verb tense shows that this is by her action/intention. (This is why it is considered to indicate a vow; in the OT it is stated that a woman's vow to God is to be honored by her father and husband.)

Numbers 30:8

Okay, was it really a vow? Made in front of her father or husband?

What was Joseph's response, if it was? Did he allow it to stand or not?

 

[Standing Up]

These are abbreviated lexicons. For example, the Perseus online lexicon (sometimes brutally slow, and also abbreviated so that reverse searches are necessary, and tends not to let me search the same term twice in one day) also gives kinswoman, cousin (iirc) and bride as definitions of adelphi. Cambridge University Classics dept. intends to add their database to Perseus in 2010. These databases cull the definitions in part from the extant texts that are posted on the database. Thus, as more extant Greek literature is added, the definitions can expand.

Perseus Table of Contents

Note, for example, that in extant Greek secular works, the use is also applied to neighbor (though I can't recall the author, sorry). When Plato uses the term "adelphn", in the Laws, he gives a further explanation -- of the same mother, for ex. (In Plato, because the particular meaning is explained by narrowdescription, Perseus still gives the definition "sister" as - due to Platos' narrowing - the particular textual use of adelphn is thus known; this does not mean that adelphn always means sister).

These were outsiders speaking of Jesus. They weren't saying, those are His spiritual sisters; those weren't terms of endearment applied to those with Him. They were simply saying, His sisters (number A, the primary meaning).

I will add, however, that those outsiders may simply have been wrong. I use this argument myself elsewhere ... except again, that is not the context of their statement. They weren't saying spiritual sisters or refering to endearments.

 

[Thekla]

Okay, was it really a vow? Made in front of her father or husband?

What was Joseph's response, if it was? Did he allow it to stand or not?

The particulars are not indicated in scripture.
Scripture does support the right of a woman to make a vow to God.

 

[Thekla]

These were outsiders speaking of Jesus. They weren't saying, those are His spiritual sisters; those weren't terms of endearment applied to those with Him. They were simply saying, His sisters (number A, the primary meaning).

I will add, however, that those outsiders may simply have been wrong. I use this argument myself elsewhere ... except again, that is not the context of their statement. They weren't saying spiritual sisters or refering to endearments.

What is not known is which of the many definitions of adelphn is meant.
As the Perseus site notes, the definitions encompass more than the two you mentioned. As NT usage for adelphos extends to half sibling, I would expect the same for adelphn (especially given Plato's use in "Laws").

Considering also the then recent ministry of John the Baptist (and it would also be interesting to research contemporary Messianic claimants), the remark about the kin of Jesus is - on the face of it - also a comment of disbelief.


Thanks to Secundulus for a more successful post from Perseus !

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This is from Perseus

ἀδελφ-ή , h(, fem. of ἀδελφός, A. sister, Trag., E Fr.866, etc.; “ὁμοπατρία ἀ.” Men.Georg.12, cf. PTeb.320.5 (ii A.D.): Ion. ἀδελφ-εή , Hdt.2.56, al.; Ep. ἀδελφ-ειή , Q.S.1.30; Dor. ἀδελφ-εά , Pi.N.7.4, and in lyr, passages of Trag., S.OT160, OC535.
2. kinswoman, LXX Jb.42.11.

3. term of endearment, Ca.4.9, To.5.21; applied to a wife, POxy.744.1 (i B. C.), etc.:—as a title, Βερενίκη ἡ ἀ. καὶ

Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940. The National Science Foundation provided support for entering this text.

Wow! that is all greek to me ehehe...........

 

[Thekla]

ἀδελφ-ή , h(, fem. of ἀδελφός, A. sister, Trag., E Fr.866, etc.; “ὁμοπατρία ἀ.

The last term (omopatria) means "same father".

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Interestingly all state Mary had only Jesus as her Child.

QUESTION:

Do you think it's biologically possible for one to have a single instance of ____ and not have a child result from such and mentioned in the Bible (or at all)?

IF your reply is "yes" then how does a few people who never met Mary or anyone who ever had saying that Jesus had no sibs have to do with the dogma being discussed in this thread, namely, that Mary had no _____. It's about _____, not sibs. Mary, not Jesus.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Thekla,

5. I reviewed it and said it says nothing about the topic, nothing about Her being a PERPETUAL virgin, nothing that specifically required that view.

That is your opinion; you have not supported it.

Our Orthodox friend stated that Luke 1:34 teaches the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary.

I noted it does not.

THEN you entered the discussion, taking up the point. It was YOUR point that the GRAMMAR of the verse mandates this.

Friend, that view is YOURS.



Once again, let's review:

1. The topic of this thread is the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, that Mary had no _____ E.V.E.R. I'm confident you've read the first word of the title. And I'm confident that since you've read my posts to you, THAT is the singular issue before us. PERPETUALITY. Specificly of Mary and Her virginity.

2. Our sister posted that the this issue is taught in Scirpture.

3. I asked where.

4. She gave one Scripture. Luke 1:34.

5. I reviewed it and said it says nothing about the topic, nothing about Her being a PERPETUAL virgin, nothing that specifically required that view.

6. She left, you assumed the position - arguing for her to me, assuming the apologetic. At this point, you entered this discussion with me.

7. You argued that the GRAMMAR of the verse requires this. Requires what? Read the first word of the title of the thread. Read all my posts to see the only issue I was discussing. That's what. You stated the GRAMMAR supported the view.

8. I noted that the verb is present active indicative and that my review of my kione grammar book indicates NOTHING about that tense mandating perpetuality - indeed, that's an entirely different Green verb tense, not the one used here.

9. You then began a long series of posts in a strong defense of your position: the grammar here mandates this. I kept asking you for something from some Greek grammar that states that, but instead you gave some Scirptures and made a number of claims - but nothing from any grammar book.

10. Meanwhile, you swayed to another point, that the CONTEXT of the verse required perpetuality. I kept asking you WHAT context, but you kept changing your answer. At times it seemed to be the "shall" but of course, that only refers to future not perpetuality. "I shall buy a car" does not mean I will buy a car every day of my life unitl I day - it's indefinate, it suggest NOTHING vis-a-vis PERPETUALTIY (the sole, only, exclusive topic of our converstation; read the first word in the title of the thread). Then, no, it was what Mary might have been thinking at that moment, but I noted that's YOUR view imputed into the text (eisegesis), not the context of the text. So, we never resolved your "context" point. In any case, it's moot to the grammar here as I noted that not a single Bible translation - including Catholic ones - translates the verse the way you state the grammar MANDATES that it does, you seem to be basing your entire apologetic on a rule no one else knows about or employs.

11. I noted that the scholar you quoted actually indicates that the verb does not mandate perpetuality.

12 Then you made the surprising announcenet that you were'nt talking about the issue of this thread or the sole issue of our conversattion - PERPETUALITY, so I asked you what you WERE talking about in this thread about perpetuality in a conversation with me exclusively about perpetuality? You didn't answer.

13. You then seemed to get a bit personal and seemed to suggest you desire to no longer discuss the grammar of the verse with me. I didn't bring it up. YOU did. In response to our Orthodox sister stating this verse proves the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary and my note that it did not. YOU are the one that said the GRAMMAR does. It's YOUR point; I don't know why you are now so uncomfortable with the points, it's yours.

That's how I see the situation. I've made a review like this 2 or 3 times in our converstation and you've never disputed the earlier ones. Are you now?




.

 

[MamaZ]

When she stated I am not knowing a man she stated that she did not know how she would conceive because at that time she was not knowing a man. In fact did not know one until the birth of Christ. Then as we read the scripture we see that there were brothers and sisters talked about. Not cousins and uncles.. So we can gleam from scripture that Mary did indeed know a man and conceived from her husband. Nothing wrong in that. She was a woman married to a man. No sin there. For the marrriage bed is to be honored.

 

[prodromos]

so says, Vines, Strongs, Thayers, and Harpers.

These are English-Greek Lexicons. There are quite a number of Lexicons in the Greek language which are vastly superior to the above. I worked for 10 years at the Centre for the Greek Language in Thessaloniki and had access to their extensive library. There were several expert linguists working there, all of whom were fluent in at least three languages, and none of them held the English-Greek Lexicons in particularly high regard due to the fact that they are abbreviated lexicons as Thekla has already mentioned.

One classic example of how this can get in the way of correct understanding of scripture is the word "ἀκρίδες" in Matthew 3:5. All English translations of the bible translate this as "locusts, and that is the only definition you will find in any of the aforementioned lexicons. Greek linguists however know that this word also means "young shoots" and that is the meaning the Orthodox Church has always understood for this passage. This error in translation goes all the way back to Jerome since he didn't get it right either. I have not yet come across a Latin-Greek Lexicon which has the latter definition.

Non Greek speaking learners of Greek often seem to forget that the people who understand Greek best are the Greeks themselves.

John

 

[Thekla]

When she stated I am not knowing a man she stated that she did not know how she would conceive because at that time she was not knowing a man. In fact did not know one until the birth of Christ. Then as we read the scripture we see that there were brothers and sisters talked about. Not cousins and uncles.. So we can gleam from scripture that Mary did indeed know a man and conceived from her husband. Nothing wrong in that. She was a woman married to a man. No sin there. For the marrriage bed is to be honored.

There is nothing in scripture which indicates which meaning of adelphos is meant.

In Greek, ews typically means ongoing.
In English, the use of the word "until" does not require a reversal of condition; it refers only to the referenced time-frame.
The Matthean passages are only concerned with establishing the fulfillment of prophecy.

 

[lionroar0]

These are English-Greek Lexicons. There are quite a number of Lexicons in the Greek language which are vastly superior to the above. I worked for 10 years at the Centre for the Greek Language in Thessaloniki and had access to their extensive library. There were several expert linguists working there, all of whom were fluent in at least three languages, and none of them held the English-Greek Lexicons in particularly high regard due to the fact that they are abbreviated lexicons as Thekla has already mentioned.

One classic example of how this can get in the way of correct understanding of scripture is the word "ἀκρίδες" in Matthew 3:5. All English translations of the bible translate this as "locusts, and that is the only definition you will find in any of the aforementioned lexicons. Greek linguists however know that this word also means "young shoots" and that is the meaning the Orthodox Church has always understood for this passage. This error in translation goes all the way back to Jerome since he didn't get it right either. I have not yet come across a Latin-Greek Lexicon which has the latter definition.

Non Greek speaking learners of Greek often seem to forget that the people who understand Greek best are the Greeks themselves.

John

It's Matt 3:4.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I worked for 10 years at the Centre for the Greek Language in Thessaloniki

Great.

Maybe you can help. Reference Luke 1:34. Does the explicit koine Greek GRAMMAR there MANDATE as the only grammatical possibility that Mary would be a virgin perpetually, as is the point of my good friend with whom I'm trying to have a discussion? I'm not asking if that is your interpretation of the text or view of Mary, I'm only and exclusively asking if the explicit koine Greek GRAMMAR mandates that - and only that - view so that the ONLY grammatically possible translation of the text is: ".... I will PERPETUALLY never know a man?"

Depending upon your gracious reply, I may have a follow-up.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

and had access to their extensive library. There were several expert linguists working there, all of whom were fluent in at least three languages, and none of them held the English-Greek Lexicons in particularly high regard due to the fact that they are abbreviated lexicons as Thekla has already mentioned.

One classic example of how this can get in the way of correct understanding of scripture is the word "ἀκρίδες" in Matthew 3:5. All English translations of the bible translate this as "locusts, and that is the only definition you will find in any of the aforementioned lexicons. Greek linguists however know that this word also means "young shoots" and that is the meaning the Orthodox Church has always understood for this passage. This error in translation goes all the way back to Jerome since he didn't get it right either. I have not yet come across a Latin-Greek Lexicon which has the latter definition.

Non Greek speaking learners of Greek often seem to forget that the people who understand Greek best are the Greeks themselves.

John[/quote]

 

[prodromos]

I posted this in response to a question in a similar thread. No one questioned it or otherwise responded and it is pertinent to the subject at hand.

To put it crudely, in the Old Testament, anything which was sanctified for use in the temple for the worship of God, was never used for a "common" purpose again. They were only ever used in the temple for the purpose for which they were "set apart".

Mary was set apart by God for the purpose of carrying His Son in her womb and then nourishing Him on her breasts. Her womb had become the flesh equivalent of the Holy of Holies. Her betrothal to Joseph was solely to provide a safe context for her conceiving and giving birth while still a virgin. She would have been stoned to death as an adultress otherwise.

Childbearing was important to the Jews because they knew that the Messiah would be born from among them. Barrenness was considered as being cursed by God for this same reason. Mary, having given birth to the Messiah, had completely fulfilled the hopes of every Jewish mother and was blessed beyond imagining. In her birthing of Christ were many Old Testament prophecies brought to fruition. She was the pinnacle of God's creation, her purpose higher than that of any other man or woman save Christ, yet many would have us believe that after achieving/fulfilling all that, she would return to the life and purpose of an ordinary woman. Did any character in the Old Testament, having been set to a higher purpose, ever return to an ordinary life?

My question again. Is there anyone who can provide examples of characters from scripture (Old Testament or New Testament), who once chosen for a higher purpose by God, ever returned to their former common lifestyle? I can't think of any, so it makes me wonder why so many people assume that Mary would do so.

John

 

[prodromos]

It's Matt 3:4.

Thank you. I have clumsy fingers on this keyboard